2024-09-05
France has revolutions in 1789. Then again in 1830. And then 1848
Napoleon III stages a “self-coup” in 1851 and rules as an effective dictator for the next 22 years
By 1870: widespread urban/rural polarization over Napoleonic rule and everyone is afraid of the Prussians.
Following the armistice:
A conservative dominated national government is elected, and relocates the capital to Versailles
Parisian radicals (supported by the mostly working-class national guard forces) seize military equipment and declared a parallel government organized under democratic/socialist ideals (the commune)
Demands of the Communards:
The government at Versailles regroups, and, by May, overtakes the city and massacres the Communards
The Communards retaliate by looting and burning the city
LeBon is present in Paris for the uprising, and has a decidedly negative view of the participants
The howling, swarming, ragged crowd which invaded the Tuileries… did not lay hands on any of the objects that excited its astonishment, and one of which would have meant bread for many days. - Gustav LeBon
For LeBon: crowd psychology is not like individual psychology
Crowds allow anonymity and lack of accountability
People lose their will and self control
They’re left highly suggestible (like hypnosis) and will behave in ways they’d never on their own
Since Europe is democratizing, crowds now rule.
Crowd psychology is not like individual psychology
Crowds allow anonymity and lack of accountability
People lose their will and self control
They’re left highly suggestible (like hypnosis) and will behave in ways they’d never on their own
Since Europe is democratizing, crowds now rule
The study of group psychology, particularly pathological and violent behaviors is revived in the mid 20th century (why?)
More nuanced versions of LeBon’s general thesis gain influence in the 1960s (even among people who otherwise reject his politics)
(According the McPhail, Herbert Blumer’s Collective Behavior model is indebted to LeBon’s.)
How collective behavior emerges:
For Gurr: frustration-aggression paired with a sense of relative deprivation explains why some people rebel and others don’t.
Gurr’s research eventually led to the creation of the Minorities at Risk project.
Crowd psychology is distinct from individual psychology. Crowds are “transformative”
Crowds are more driven by emotion than reason, and are spontaneous rather than deliberate.
Crowds are mobilized by social strain and societal breakdown, and participants are more likely to come from groups where loss of self is more attractive.
Are there scenarios where this makes sense? Are there scenarios where it doesn’t?
Why does this start to see sustained pushback in the later 60s and 70s?
Strain theories emphasize the role of disorder, “anomie” and societal breakdown, to explain contentious behavior, but:
At least in some cases, being part of organizations and networks is a positive predictor of participating in contentious behavior.
“Anti-social crowds” are an oxymoron. Sustained collective action requires people who can play nice with others.
Crowd characterized as reverting to “animal instincts”, but:
“Stampede” was more accurately described as a progressive crowd collapse: people fell when a door collapsed, and then others fell on top of them.
Most victims reported helping others, receiving help, or witnessing strangers helping someone else.
Cultural norms (particularly gender norms) played a predictable role.
Strain theories emphasize the role of social strain, grievance, and anomie, but:
Does LeBon’s characterization ring true?
The Communards are organized and embedded in local networks and institutions. The rebellion is a product of organization, not chaos.
Their actions deliberately draw on culturally relevant symbols and behaviors, not on “animal instinct”
Barricades
Committees
Declarations, occupations, revolutionary governments
They’re violent and irrational… but so is everyone else.
Sustained collective resistance often highly organized and sophisticated, and people maintain some self control even in a riot.
Forms of collective action are historically contingent and adapt to cultural norms, policing, government structure etc.
Participants know each other! Being part of a social network makes you more likely to protest.
Violence and deprivation are not neatly correlated (at a minimum, strain alone can’t explain rebellion)
Collective behavior tradition remains influential, but see serious challenges in the 1960s.
Contentious behavior is no less rational (in the narrow rational-choice sense) than individual behavior.
Contemporary theories of contentious behavior generally place more emphasis on:
The role of organization, structure, and resources in explaining contentious behavior over the role of social strain or grievance
The social and political context for collective action, over studying “crowds” on their own; continuity between conventional state-approved political behavior and non-conventional forms.
The importance of rationality over pathologies (even for extreme behaviors like genocide)